Published: March 15 2009 19:12
After years of being cast as the villain of global warming, the US wants to make up for lost time. President Barack Obama’s ambitious environmental plans would leapfrog Europe in carbon dioxide regulation, covering about 80 per cent of US output versus less than half that in Europe. But such a shift also means a tough political haul. Huge compromises are likely, if the plan is ever passed.
Unlike a carbon tax, for which the price is known but the market response unclear, Mr Obama favours a cap and trade scheme. This would create a gradually descending limit on CO2 that would cut emissions 14 per cent by 2020 and 83 per cent by 2050. Meanwhile, there would be an auction among firms of tradeable “pollution permits”, which would raise some $650bn in the first eight years. Point Carbon, a consultancy, estimates such permits would have an initial cost per tonne of $14, implying that consumers would pay an extra 12 cents a gallon for gasoline and 7 per cent for electricity.
As with all Washington initiatives, lobbyists will seek to deflect costs or increase benefits for whichever industry they represent. Politicians from coal mining states, or those that depend most on fossil fuel power, will also howl that the measures punish the heartland in order to please environmentalists on the coasts. Zero-carbon producers, such as nuclear and hydroelectric plants, could reap a bonanza at the expense of less fortunate competitors. Subsidies will be sought for favoured technologies and industries.
The question of how other countries respond will also surely arise. If the result is that US industry shifts its heavy CO2 emitters to poorer emerging countries that lack such schemes, the net effect on climate change will be nil.
Idling all factories in the west may not be enough to stop greenhouse gases reaching disastrous levels if China and India do not also make cuts of their own. The final plan could look very different indeed from Mr Obama’s blueprint.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Monday, 16 March 2009
Ten ways to save the World
We get the message. The planet's doomed unless we get our act together PDQ. We even know some of the measures needed to give ourselves a chance. But which less orthodox proposals could stave off disastrous climate change?
Environment editor Geoffrey Lean has a cunning plan
Sunday, 15 March 2009
It has been a really bad week for the climate. Each day brought depressing news as scientists meeting in Copenhagen told us global warming is taking place more rapidly than expected. The seas are rising faster than predicted; the polar ice caps are melting more quickly; and the Amazon rainforest is doomed unless urgent action is taken.
The main solutions are widely agreed. The world needs to forge a much tougher treaty this year to replace the failed Kyoto Protocol. Global emissions of carbon dioxide must be cut by at least half by the middle of the century, much more in industrialised countries. Using energy more efficiently is essential, as is rapidly increasing it from renewable sources. Nuclear power and biofuels are much more controversial, but are likely to be used to some extent. But new, much less familiar solutions are also emerging.
Here are 10 of them.
Sweep away soot
Cutting soot emissions from car exhausts, factories and open fires is probably the fastest way to tackle global warming, and there are calls for a treaty to achieve this. Scientists say the pollutant is the second biggest culprit in climate change after carbon dioxide. Black carbon, which gives soot its colour, has two main effects. It heats the atmosphere by absorbing radiation from the sun and releasing it into the air. And it darkens snow and ice when it falls on them, causing them to reflect less sunlight, heat up and melt – in turn exposing land or water, which also warms rapidly. Reducing emissions is fairly easy, using tried and tested technology. And it has a rapid effect as soot stays only days or weeks in the atmosphere, compared with centuries for carbon dioxide.
Save the ozone
Measures to save the ozone layer have so far been the most effective steps to combat climate change, as many of the chemicals that attack the protective layer in the atmosphere are also global warming gases. A 20-year-old treaty, the Montreal Protocol, has almost phased out their production, coincidentally eliminating the equivalent of 11 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year. This puts to shame the Kyoto Protocol, which aimed to cut emissions by 2 billion tons. Experts want measures to remove the chemicals from equipment such as old fridges, where they acted as coolants, when these are scrapped, saving the equivalent of 20 billion tons of carbon dioxide.
Make connections
Renewable energy is often unreliable: the sun does not always shine, the wind does not blow for ever. But the European Commission and other bodies are drawing up plans to get round this by tapping clean sources and linking them up, so that there will always be enough to meet all Europe's electricity needs. Solar power stations, for example, would be placed in the Sahara, where just a fraction of the desert could provide for the whole continent. Tides would be tapped along Britain's coasts, the world's best place for exploiting this resource. Huge wind farms would be erected in the North Sea, and these would be balanced by hydropower in mountainous areas such as Norway, storing water behind dams and releasing it on calm days. It would all be linked by a continent-wide electricity grid.
Wise up the grid
Barack Obama, David Cameron and Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google, are all sold on creating a "smart grid", which the Tory leader describes as like moving from "the plain old telephone system to the internet". The present "dumb grid" just delivers electricity from generators to consumers; the smart one would enable them to communicate with each other. So, it can make fridges and washing machines and other appliances use power when it is abundant and cheap, and avoid peak times when it would be much more expensive. Smoothing out demand in this way means that the grid needs fewer power stations, and can accommodate renewable energy more easily. It would also provide a huge boost to a "rooftop revolution", where households generate their own electricity from the sun or the wind and sell what they do not need to the grid.
Rethink cars
Motoring could be revolutionised if cars were marketed like mobile phones – in a manner that would cut carbon dioxide and reduce the cost of driving. Motorists would get subsidised – or possibly even free – electric cars in the same way that customers currently get mobile phone handsets. In return, they would take out a contract for miles, rather than minutes, entitling them to get power either by plugging in to recharging points (at home, in car parks or on the street) or exchanging batteries at filling stations. The idea is the brainchild of a thirty-something former dot-com entrepreneur, Shia Agassi, who believes it would halve motoring costs. It sounds too good to be true, but Israel, Denmark, Hawaii and San Francisco are already starting to put the system in place – and even Gordon Brown has toyed with the idea. But to tackle climate change properly, the electricity has to be provided by renewable sources or nuclear power rather than fossil fuels.
Embrace scum
Slimy scum could prove our saviour, as algae are emerging as one of the most promising and environmentally friendly sources of biofuel. Algae can grow extraordinarily fast, doubling in weight several times a day. They produce at least 15 times as much fuel per hectare as conventional crops like corn or oilseed rape, and do not take up farmland needed to grow food; they can be grown in lakes, the sea or even in the process of cleaning polluted water. Algae take three times their own weight of carbon dioxide from the air while growing, and the fuel they produce packs much more power for its weight than other biofuels. It is therefore being developed as a potential carbon-neutral way of fuelling aircraft: Air New Zealand has already mixed it with ordinary jet fuel for test flights. Cars have run on pure algae biofuel, and big oil companies are investing in it.
Grow houses
Hemp is the world's second fastest growing plant after bamboo, shooting up four metres in just 14 weeks, rapidly taking carbon from the air. One hectare provides enough hemp to construct a house, if mixed with lime to revive an ancient building material. Limetechnology, the Abingdon-based firm pioneering the practice, calculates that growing it will capture 50 times as much carbon dioxide as would be saved by upgrading a traditional home to modern standards of energy efficiency. Biochar, an ancient technique used by Amazonian Indians to fertilise their land by burying charcoal, has even wider applications. Opponents worry that growing trees for it will take land out of food production, but Craig Sams – the co-founder of Green and Black's chocolate, who is now developing it – believes that just 21/2 per cent of the world's productive land would suffice to get carbon dioxide levels down to those of the pre-industrial age by 2050.
Pay for trees
Felling forests, especially in the tropics, is the second biggest cause of carbon dioxide emissions after burning fossil fuels, accounting for a fifth of the world's total. But people and governments have no incentive to leave them standing when they can make money by selling the timber, or farming the cleared land. Now international negotiators are beginning to work out how the world as a whole could compensate them for setting aside the chainsaw. In practice, of course, the money would end up coming from rich countries. Halving emissions from deforestation is estimated to cost about $20bn (£14.3bn) a year, but would avoid pollution costing at least five times as much. Similarly, Ecuador is seeking international compensation for refraining from developing a huge oil field lying under a particularly important area of Amazonian rainforest in the north-west of the country.
Reform taxation
Green taxes are beginning to come back into fashion after being eclipsed for years by sophisticated schemes for trading carbon emissions. They would work best as part of an "ecological tax reform", which would reduce taxes on employment – such as income tax and national insurance – at the same time. By shifting the burden from "goods", such as work, to "bads", such as pollution, it becomes cheaper to lay off barrels of oil than to fire people, reducing pollution and increasing employment. The European Union has estimated that this could create at least 2.7 million jobs across the continent, while combating global warming. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have both taken up the idea and promised to introduce it if they get into power. But so did Gordon Brown in opposition, and, despite introducing some modest measures in his 1999 Budget, he backed off after the fuel price protests the next year.
Follow a busker
A former busker, Aubrey Meyer, thought up what is increasingly regarded as the long-term solution to global warming – and, through relentless campaigning, he has managed to get his idea adopted as policy by many governments, especially in developing countries. Dubbed "contraction and convergence", it starts from the principle that everyone on Earth is entitled to emit the same amount of carbon dioxide. It then determines the level of emissions low enough to avoid dangerous climate change. The total amount put into the atmosphere worldwide each year must then be made to "contract" until it reaches this point. Simultaneously, the totals of individual countries have to "converge", so that each emits the same amount for every one of its citizens; rich countries would have to reduce their totals very heavily, while some poor countries could actually be able to increase theirs. Most experts agree that it is the fairest framework. Persuading Americans to agree to emit the same amount as Ethiopians is another matter.
The top six world savers: Key figures
Barack Obama
US President
Transformed prospects for a new, tough international treaty by giving it high priority
Hu Jintao
President of China
If the US and China can agree on what to do, the chances of international action are good
Anders Fogh Rasmussen
Prime Minister of Denmark
Will chair December's crucial treaty negotiating meeting in Copenhagen
R K Pachauri
Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The body that provides scientific evidence on global warming
Yvo de Boer
Treaty executive secretary
Tough Dutch UN official responsible for keeping negotiations on track
Gordon Brown
Prime Minister UK
Finally becoming really interested in climate change. But is he up to the job?
Environment editor Geoffrey Lean has a cunning plan
Sunday, 15 March 2009
It has been a really bad week for the climate. Each day brought depressing news as scientists meeting in Copenhagen told us global warming is taking place more rapidly than expected. The seas are rising faster than predicted; the polar ice caps are melting more quickly; and the Amazon rainforest is doomed unless urgent action is taken.
The main solutions are widely agreed. The world needs to forge a much tougher treaty this year to replace the failed Kyoto Protocol. Global emissions of carbon dioxide must be cut by at least half by the middle of the century, much more in industrialised countries. Using energy more efficiently is essential, as is rapidly increasing it from renewable sources. Nuclear power and biofuels are much more controversial, but are likely to be used to some extent. But new, much less familiar solutions are also emerging.
Here are 10 of them.
Sweep away soot
Cutting soot emissions from car exhausts, factories and open fires is probably the fastest way to tackle global warming, and there are calls for a treaty to achieve this. Scientists say the pollutant is the second biggest culprit in climate change after carbon dioxide. Black carbon, which gives soot its colour, has two main effects. It heats the atmosphere by absorbing radiation from the sun and releasing it into the air. And it darkens snow and ice when it falls on them, causing them to reflect less sunlight, heat up and melt – in turn exposing land or water, which also warms rapidly. Reducing emissions is fairly easy, using tried and tested technology. And it has a rapid effect as soot stays only days or weeks in the atmosphere, compared with centuries for carbon dioxide.
Save the ozone
Measures to save the ozone layer have so far been the most effective steps to combat climate change, as many of the chemicals that attack the protective layer in the atmosphere are also global warming gases. A 20-year-old treaty, the Montreal Protocol, has almost phased out their production, coincidentally eliminating the equivalent of 11 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year. This puts to shame the Kyoto Protocol, which aimed to cut emissions by 2 billion tons. Experts want measures to remove the chemicals from equipment such as old fridges, where they acted as coolants, when these are scrapped, saving the equivalent of 20 billion tons of carbon dioxide.
Make connections
Renewable energy is often unreliable: the sun does not always shine, the wind does not blow for ever. But the European Commission and other bodies are drawing up plans to get round this by tapping clean sources and linking them up, so that there will always be enough to meet all Europe's electricity needs. Solar power stations, for example, would be placed in the Sahara, where just a fraction of the desert could provide for the whole continent. Tides would be tapped along Britain's coasts, the world's best place for exploiting this resource. Huge wind farms would be erected in the North Sea, and these would be balanced by hydropower in mountainous areas such as Norway, storing water behind dams and releasing it on calm days. It would all be linked by a continent-wide electricity grid.
Wise up the grid
Barack Obama, David Cameron and Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google, are all sold on creating a "smart grid", which the Tory leader describes as like moving from "the plain old telephone system to the internet". The present "dumb grid" just delivers electricity from generators to consumers; the smart one would enable them to communicate with each other. So, it can make fridges and washing machines and other appliances use power when it is abundant and cheap, and avoid peak times when it would be much more expensive. Smoothing out demand in this way means that the grid needs fewer power stations, and can accommodate renewable energy more easily. It would also provide a huge boost to a "rooftop revolution", where households generate their own electricity from the sun or the wind and sell what they do not need to the grid.
Rethink cars
Motoring could be revolutionised if cars were marketed like mobile phones – in a manner that would cut carbon dioxide and reduce the cost of driving. Motorists would get subsidised – or possibly even free – electric cars in the same way that customers currently get mobile phone handsets. In return, they would take out a contract for miles, rather than minutes, entitling them to get power either by plugging in to recharging points (at home, in car parks or on the street) or exchanging batteries at filling stations. The idea is the brainchild of a thirty-something former dot-com entrepreneur, Shia Agassi, who believes it would halve motoring costs. It sounds too good to be true, but Israel, Denmark, Hawaii and San Francisco are already starting to put the system in place – and even Gordon Brown has toyed with the idea. But to tackle climate change properly, the electricity has to be provided by renewable sources or nuclear power rather than fossil fuels.
Embrace scum
Slimy scum could prove our saviour, as algae are emerging as one of the most promising and environmentally friendly sources of biofuel. Algae can grow extraordinarily fast, doubling in weight several times a day. They produce at least 15 times as much fuel per hectare as conventional crops like corn or oilseed rape, and do not take up farmland needed to grow food; they can be grown in lakes, the sea or even in the process of cleaning polluted water. Algae take three times their own weight of carbon dioxide from the air while growing, and the fuel they produce packs much more power for its weight than other biofuels. It is therefore being developed as a potential carbon-neutral way of fuelling aircraft: Air New Zealand has already mixed it with ordinary jet fuel for test flights. Cars have run on pure algae biofuel, and big oil companies are investing in it.
Grow houses
Hemp is the world's second fastest growing plant after bamboo, shooting up four metres in just 14 weeks, rapidly taking carbon from the air. One hectare provides enough hemp to construct a house, if mixed with lime to revive an ancient building material. Limetechnology, the Abingdon-based firm pioneering the practice, calculates that growing it will capture 50 times as much carbon dioxide as would be saved by upgrading a traditional home to modern standards of energy efficiency. Biochar, an ancient technique used by Amazonian Indians to fertilise their land by burying charcoal, has even wider applications. Opponents worry that growing trees for it will take land out of food production, but Craig Sams – the co-founder of Green and Black's chocolate, who is now developing it – believes that just 21/2 per cent of the world's productive land would suffice to get carbon dioxide levels down to those of the pre-industrial age by 2050.
Pay for trees
Felling forests, especially in the tropics, is the second biggest cause of carbon dioxide emissions after burning fossil fuels, accounting for a fifth of the world's total. But people and governments have no incentive to leave them standing when they can make money by selling the timber, or farming the cleared land. Now international negotiators are beginning to work out how the world as a whole could compensate them for setting aside the chainsaw. In practice, of course, the money would end up coming from rich countries. Halving emissions from deforestation is estimated to cost about $20bn (£14.3bn) a year, but would avoid pollution costing at least five times as much. Similarly, Ecuador is seeking international compensation for refraining from developing a huge oil field lying under a particularly important area of Amazonian rainforest in the north-west of the country.
Reform taxation
Green taxes are beginning to come back into fashion after being eclipsed for years by sophisticated schemes for trading carbon emissions. They would work best as part of an "ecological tax reform", which would reduce taxes on employment – such as income tax and national insurance – at the same time. By shifting the burden from "goods", such as work, to "bads", such as pollution, it becomes cheaper to lay off barrels of oil than to fire people, reducing pollution and increasing employment. The European Union has estimated that this could create at least 2.7 million jobs across the continent, while combating global warming. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have both taken up the idea and promised to introduce it if they get into power. But so did Gordon Brown in opposition, and, despite introducing some modest measures in his 1999 Budget, he backed off after the fuel price protests the next year.
Follow a busker
A former busker, Aubrey Meyer, thought up what is increasingly regarded as the long-term solution to global warming – and, through relentless campaigning, he has managed to get his idea adopted as policy by many governments, especially in developing countries. Dubbed "contraction and convergence", it starts from the principle that everyone on Earth is entitled to emit the same amount of carbon dioxide. It then determines the level of emissions low enough to avoid dangerous climate change. The total amount put into the atmosphere worldwide each year must then be made to "contract" until it reaches this point. Simultaneously, the totals of individual countries have to "converge", so that each emits the same amount for every one of its citizens; rich countries would have to reduce their totals very heavily, while some poor countries could actually be able to increase theirs. Most experts agree that it is the fairest framework. Persuading Americans to agree to emit the same amount as Ethiopians is another matter.
The top six world savers: Key figures
Barack Obama
US President
Transformed prospects for a new, tough international treaty by giving it high priority
Hu Jintao
President of China
If the US and China can agree on what to do, the chances of international action are good
Anders Fogh Rasmussen
Prime Minister of Denmark
Will chair December's crucial treaty negotiating meeting in Copenhagen
R K Pachauri
Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The body that provides scientific evidence on global warming
Yvo de Boer
Treaty executive secretary
Tough Dutch UN official responsible for keeping negotiations on track
Gordon Brown
Prime Minister UK
Finally becoming really interested in climate change. But is he up to the job?
Climate change woes at heart of Turkey water meet
The Associated Press
Published: March 15, 2009
ISTANBUL: Climate change, the global economic meltdown and the role of big water companies are on the agenda for thousands of delegates at a conference this week in Turkey focused on the world's water resources.
Global economic turmoil has sparked concerns that dwindling funds for investment in water infrastructure could create growing problems for the world's neediest. Depletion and pollution are already taking a toll.
"The water situation in the world is not going in the right direction," said Ger Bergkamp, director general of the World Water Council, organizer of the forum. "There is a matter of urgency to act."
Two-thirds of the world's population will face water shortages by 2025 as populations expand and ecosystems deteriorate, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, an environmental network based near Geneva.
"Climate change will be felt first and foremost through water, whether it be drought, floods, storms, ice melting or sea-level rise," Mark Smith, head of the union's water program, said in a statement. He said river basins and coasts must be protected because they provide water storage and flood control.
The World Water Council, based in Marseilles, France, holds a forum every three years. It was founded to exchange ideas about conservation and the development of water resources.
Group members include the World Bank, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is among leaders expected to attend the World Water Forum which opens in Istanbul on Monday.
Some non-governmental organizations accuse the forum of serving as a vehicle for big water companies to promote their own interests through privatization, denying the "human right" to water in impoverished communities around the world.
"It's really a big trade show," said Maude Barlow, founder of the Blue Planet Project, an Ottawa, Canada-based group that seeks to protect fresh water. "They deeply believe that water is a commodity to be bought and sold."
Published: March 15, 2009
ISTANBUL: Climate change, the global economic meltdown and the role of big water companies are on the agenda for thousands of delegates at a conference this week in Turkey focused on the world's water resources.
Global economic turmoil has sparked concerns that dwindling funds for investment in water infrastructure could create growing problems for the world's neediest. Depletion and pollution are already taking a toll.
"The water situation in the world is not going in the right direction," said Ger Bergkamp, director general of the World Water Council, organizer of the forum. "There is a matter of urgency to act."
Two-thirds of the world's population will face water shortages by 2025 as populations expand and ecosystems deteriorate, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, an environmental network based near Geneva.
"Climate change will be felt first and foremost through water, whether it be drought, floods, storms, ice melting or sea-level rise," Mark Smith, head of the union's water program, said in a statement. He said river basins and coasts must be protected because they provide water storage and flood control.
The World Water Council, based in Marseilles, France, holds a forum every three years. It was founded to exchange ideas about conservation and the development of water resources.
Group members include the World Bank, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is among leaders expected to attend the World Water Forum which opens in Istanbul on Monday.
Some non-governmental organizations accuse the forum of serving as a vehicle for big water companies to promote their own interests through privatization, denying the "human right" to water in impoverished communities around the world.
"It's really a big trade show," said Maude Barlow, founder of the Blue Planet Project, an Ottawa, Canada-based group that seeks to protect fresh water. "They deeply believe that water is a commodity to be bought and sold."
Northeast US to suffer most from future sea rise
The Associated Press
Published: March 15, 2009
WASHINGTON: The northeastern U.S. coast is likely to see the world's biggest sea level rise from man-made global warming, a new study predicts.
However much the oceans rise by the end of the century, add an extra 8 inches (20 centimeters) or so for New York, Boston and other spots along the coast from the mid-Atlantic to New England states. That's because of predicted changes in ocean currents, according to a study based on computer models published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience.
An extra 8 inches (20 centimeters) — on top of a possible 2 or 3 feet (60 or 90 centimeters) of sea rise globally by 2100 — is a big deal, especially when nor'easter storms and hurricanes hit, experts said.
"It's not just waterfront homes and wetlands that are at stake here," said Donald Boesch, president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, who was not part of the study. "Those kind of rises in sea level when placed on top of the storm surges we see today, put in jeopardy lots of infrastructure, including the New York subway system."
For years, scientists have talked about rising sea levels due to global warming — both from warm water expanding and the melt of ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica. Predictions for the average worldwide sea rise keep changing along with the rate of ice melt. Recently, more scientists are saying the situation has worsened so that a 3-foot (90-centimeter) rise in sea level by 2100 is becoming a common theme.
But the oceans won't rise at the same rate everywhere, said study author Jianjun Yin of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University. It will be "greater and faster" for the Northeast, with Boston one of the worst hit among major cities, he said. So, if it's 3 feet (90 centimeters), add another 8 inches (20 centimeters) for that region.
The explanation involves complicated ocean currents. Computer models forecast that as climate change continues, there will be a slowdown of the great ocean conveyor belt. That system moves heat energy in warm currents from the tropics to the North Atlantic and pushes the cooler, saltier water down, moving it farther south around Africa and into the Pacific. As the conveyor belt slows, so will the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic current. Those two fast-running currents have kept the Northeast's sea level unusually low because of a combination of physics and geography, Yin said.
Slow down the conveyor belt 33 to 43 percent as predicted by computer models, and the Northeast sea level rises faster, Yin said.
So far, the conveyor belt has not yet noticeably slowed.
A decade ago, scientists worried about the possibility that this current conveyor belt would halt altogether — something that would cause abrupt and catastrophic climate change like that shown in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow." But in recent years, they have concluded that a shutdown is unlikely to happen this century.
Other experts who reviewed Yin's work say it makes sense.
"Our coastlines aren't designed for that extra 8 inches of storm surge you get out of that sea level rise effect," said Jonathan Overpeck, director of an Earth studies institute at the University of Arizona.
While Boston and New York are looking at an additional 8 inches (20 centimeters), other places wouldn't get that much extra rise. The study suggests Miami and much of the Southeast would get about 2 inches (5 centimeters) above the global sea rise average of perhaps 3 feet (90 centimeters), and San Francisco would get less than an extra inch (2.5 centimeters). Parts of southern Australia, northern Asia and southern and western South America would get less than the global average sea level rise.
This study along with another one last month looking at regional sea level rise from the projected melt of the west Antarctic ice sheet "provide a compelling argument for anticipating and preparing for higher rates of sea level rise," said Virginia Burkett, chief scientist for Global Change Research at the U.S. Geological Survey.
Burkett, who is based in Louisiana, said eventually New Englanders could be in the same "vulnerability situation" to storms and sea level rise as New Orleans.
___
On the Net
Nature Geoscience:
Published: March 15, 2009
WASHINGTON: The northeastern U.S. coast is likely to see the world's biggest sea level rise from man-made global warming, a new study predicts.
However much the oceans rise by the end of the century, add an extra 8 inches (20 centimeters) or so for New York, Boston and other spots along the coast from the mid-Atlantic to New England states. That's because of predicted changes in ocean currents, according to a study based on computer models published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience.
An extra 8 inches (20 centimeters) — on top of a possible 2 or 3 feet (60 or 90 centimeters) of sea rise globally by 2100 — is a big deal, especially when nor'easter storms and hurricanes hit, experts said.
"It's not just waterfront homes and wetlands that are at stake here," said Donald Boesch, president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, who was not part of the study. "Those kind of rises in sea level when placed on top of the storm surges we see today, put in jeopardy lots of infrastructure, including the New York subway system."
For years, scientists have talked about rising sea levels due to global warming — both from warm water expanding and the melt of ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica. Predictions for the average worldwide sea rise keep changing along with the rate of ice melt. Recently, more scientists are saying the situation has worsened so that a 3-foot (90-centimeter) rise in sea level by 2100 is becoming a common theme.
But the oceans won't rise at the same rate everywhere, said study author Jianjun Yin of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University. It will be "greater and faster" for the Northeast, with Boston one of the worst hit among major cities, he said. So, if it's 3 feet (90 centimeters), add another 8 inches (20 centimeters) for that region.
The explanation involves complicated ocean currents. Computer models forecast that as climate change continues, there will be a slowdown of the great ocean conveyor belt. That system moves heat energy in warm currents from the tropics to the North Atlantic and pushes the cooler, saltier water down, moving it farther south around Africa and into the Pacific. As the conveyor belt slows, so will the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic current. Those two fast-running currents have kept the Northeast's sea level unusually low because of a combination of physics and geography, Yin said.
Slow down the conveyor belt 33 to 43 percent as predicted by computer models, and the Northeast sea level rises faster, Yin said.
So far, the conveyor belt has not yet noticeably slowed.
A decade ago, scientists worried about the possibility that this current conveyor belt would halt altogether — something that would cause abrupt and catastrophic climate change like that shown in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow." But in recent years, they have concluded that a shutdown is unlikely to happen this century.
Other experts who reviewed Yin's work say it makes sense.
"Our coastlines aren't designed for that extra 8 inches of storm surge you get out of that sea level rise effect," said Jonathan Overpeck, director of an Earth studies institute at the University of Arizona.
While Boston and New York are looking at an additional 8 inches (20 centimeters), other places wouldn't get that much extra rise. The study suggests Miami and much of the Southeast would get about 2 inches (5 centimeters) above the global sea rise average of perhaps 3 feet (90 centimeters), and San Francisco would get less than an extra inch (2.5 centimeters). Parts of southern Australia, northern Asia and southern and western South America would get less than the global average sea level rise.
This study along with another one last month looking at regional sea level rise from the projected melt of the west Antarctic ice sheet "provide a compelling argument for anticipating and preparing for higher rates of sea level rise," said Virginia Burkett, chief scientist for Global Change Research at the U.S. Geological Survey.
Burkett, who is based in Louisiana, said eventually New Englanders could be in the same "vulnerability situation" to storms and sea level rise as New Orleans.
___
On the Net
Nature Geoscience:
Artificial trees and brightened clouds may help to cool us down
The Sunday Times
March 15, 2009
Techniques for geo-engineering are coming under serious scrutiny as temperatures and CO2 emissions continue to rise
Richard Woods and Jonathan Leake
THE threat of devastating climate change is now so great that some scientists say it is time to investigate a Plan B - geo-engineering on a planetary scale.
Such methods of altering the world’s climate may become necessary, they say, unless emissions of greenhouse gases fall within five years.
Ideas that were once the realm of science fiction - such as creating artificial trees to absorb carbon dioxide, or reflecting sunlight away from the Earth - are coming under serious scrutiny as temperatures and CO2 emissions continue to rise. The issue has become so pressing that the Royal Society, Britain’s national academy of science, is preparing a report on the feasibility of geo-engineering.
Professor John Shepherd, chairman of the working group, said: “Our study aims to separate the science from the science fiction and offer recommendations on which options deserve serious consideration.”
The report is not yet complete but the personal view of Professor Brian Launder, one of its contributors, is that without CO2 reductions or geo-engineering, “civilisa-tion as we know it will end within our grandchildren’s lifetime”.
At present, global emissions of greenhouse gases are still rising by 2% to 3% a year, according to the Met Office. If that continues, average world temperatures are projected to rise by as much as 5.5C by 2100.
Launder, professor of mechanical engineering at Manchester University, reckons that extracting carbon from the atmosphere would be too slow a process to prevent significant warming. In his view “the only rational scheme is to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth and to reflect back more of it”.
One method under detailed analysis is to make clouds brighter – especially in the Pacific where the ocean temperature has great influence on world climate. “If these clouds can be brightened so you increase the sunlight reflected even by a couple of per cent, it looks as though that could be enough . . . to prevent most of the effects of global warming,” said Launder.
Professor Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University is investigating how ships could spray droplets of sea water into the atmosphere where they would evaporate, leaving tiny salt crystals to rise on air currents into the clouds.
The crystals would act as “nuclei” around which water vapour could condense and thus increase the reflective power of the clouds, bouncing more of the sun’s energy back into space. But critics warn that although such schemes might lower temperatures swiftly, they would have to be maintained for long periods and the side-effects are unknown.
Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “Anything that alters the climate in a different way from reducing carbon has inherent dangers because we don’t understand the climate well enough.”
For this reason Professor Tim Lenton, another climate scientist, prefers technologies that could suck CO2 out of the atmosphere: “We should push for the strongest mitigation [of CO2 emissions] possible. But among the geo-engineering options there are some that might be useful add-ons.”
One idea is to create plantations of fast-growing trees such as willow and turn them into “biochar”. Plants grow by extracting CO2 from the air and converting it to wood, so the idea would be to turn the wood into charcoal, using giant ovens. Then it would be buried so the carbon could never be released back into the air.
Other experts warn that geo-engineer-ing risks diverting attention from the need to create a carbon-neutral economy.
“Wind and solar energy are at least in the pipeline, whereas geo-engineering is much more speculative,” Pope said.
March 15, 2009
Techniques for geo-engineering are coming under serious scrutiny as temperatures and CO2 emissions continue to rise
Richard Woods and Jonathan Leake
THE threat of devastating climate change is now so great that some scientists say it is time to investigate a Plan B - geo-engineering on a planetary scale.
Such methods of altering the world’s climate may become necessary, they say, unless emissions of greenhouse gases fall within five years.
Ideas that were once the realm of science fiction - such as creating artificial trees to absorb carbon dioxide, or reflecting sunlight away from the Earth - are coming under serious scrutiny as temperatures and CO2 emissions continue to rise. The issue has become so pressing that the Royal Society, Britain’s national academy of science, is preparing a report on the feasibility of geo-engineering.
Professor John Shepherd, chairman of the working group, said: “Our study aims to separate the science from the science fiction and offer recommendations on which options deserve serious consideration.”
The report is not yet complete but the personal view of Professor Brian Launder, one of its contributors, is that without CO2 reductions or geo-engineering, “civilisa-tion as we know it will end within our grandchildren’s lifetime”.
At present, global emissions of greenhouse gases are still rising by 2% to 3% a year, according to the Met Office. If that continues, average world temperatures are projected to rise by as much as 5.5C by 2100.
Launder, professor of mechanical engineering at Manchester University, reckons that extracting carbon from the atmosphere would be too slow a process to prevent significant warming. In his view “the only rational scheme is to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth and to reflect back more of it”.
One method under detailed analysis is to make clouds brighter – especially in the Pacific where the ocean temperature has great influence on world climate. “If these clouds can be brightened so you increase the sunlight reflected even by a couple of per cent, it looks as though that could be enough . . . to prevent most of the effects of global warming,” said Launder.
Professor Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University is investigating how ships could spray droplets of sea water into the atmosphere where they would evaporate, leaving tiny salt crystals to rise on air currents into the clouds.
The crystals would act as “nuclei” around which water vapour could condense and thus increase the reflective power of the clouds, bouncing more of the sun’s energy back into space. But critics warn that although such schemes might lower temperatures swiftly, they would have to be maintained for long periods and the side-effects are unknown.
Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “Anything that alters the climate in a different way from reducing carbon has inherent dangers because we don’t understand the climate well enough.”
For this reason Professor Tim Lenton, another climate scientist, prefers technologies that could suck CO2 out of the atmosphere: “We should push for the strongest mitigation [of CO2 emissions] possible. But among the geo-engineering options there are some that might be useful add-ons.”
One idea is to create plantations of fast-growing trees such as willow and turn them into “biochar”. Plants grow by extracting CO2 from the air and converting it to wood, so the idea would be to turn the wood into charcoal, using giant ovens. Then it would be buried so the carbon could never be released back into the air.
Other experts warn that geo-engineer-ing risks diverting attention from the need to create a carbon-neutral economy.
“Wind and solar energy are at least in the pipeline, whereas geo-engineering is much more speculative,” Pope said.
Britain's first electric supercar gets ready to roll
John Vidal, environment editor
The Guardian, Monday 16 March 2009
It is faster out of the blocks than a V12 Ferrari and can do 0-60mph in four seconds. It will go more than 140mph and can be fully charged up over lunch. But the first British electric supercar is not being built by one of the world's great car companies.
It has instead been knocked up in a few months in a Norfolk garage from off-the-shelf parts mostly available on the web.
An A-team of British motorsport engineers was commissioned by Ecotricity wind power company chief Dale Vince last August to "blow the socks off Jeremy Clarkson and smash the stereotype of electric cars".
All have worked for Lotus and between them have developed nearly every car that a generation of petrolheads has swooned over - such as the McLaren F1, Lotus Elan, the Corvette 2R1, the Jaguar XJR15 and the De Lorean. The project leader was director of engineering, and all six problem-solve for the world's top motor sport teams. "The brief was to prove to middle England that electric cars can be quick to develop, beautiful to look at, cheap to run, and run entirely on wind power," said Vince.
The team went on to eBay, and found a second-hand Lotus Exige which they pulled apart. Seven months later, the car, which still has no name, is raised on blocks in the Norfolk garage but is just a few weeks away from full testing.
The consensus is that no large auto company could have developed anything so fast or for the £200,000 budget. "Ford would have taken years and it would have cost millions of pounds," said Ian Doble, project leader.
The Guardian, Monday 16 March 2009
It is faster out of the blocks than a V12 Ferrari and can do 0-60mph in four seconds. It will go more than 140mph and can be fully charged up over lunch. But the first British electric supercar is not being built by one of the world's great car companies.
It has instead been knocked up in a few months in a Norfolk garage from off-the-shelf parts mostly available on the web.
An A-team of British motorsport engineers was commissioned by Ecotricity wind power company chief Dale Vince last August to "blow the socks off Jeremy Clarkson and smash the stereotype of electric cars".
All have worked for Lotus and between them have developed nearly every car that a generation of petrolheads has swooned over - such as the McLaren F1, Lotus Elan, the Corvette 2R1, the Jaguar XJR15 and the De Lorean. The project leader was director of engineering, and all six problem-solve for the world's top motor sport teams. "The brief was to prove to middle England that electric cars can be quick to develop, beautiful to look at, cheap to run, and run entirely on wind power," said Vince.
The team went on to eBay, and found a second-hand Lotus Exige which they pulled apart. Seven months later, the car, which still has no name, is raised on blocks in the Norfolk garage but is just a few weeks away from full testing.
The consensus is that no large auto company could have developed anything so fast or for the £200,000 budget. "Ford would have taken years and it would have cost millions of pounds," said Ian Doble, project leader.
The next really cool thing
By Thomas L. Friedman
Published: March 15, 2009
SAN FRANCISCO: If you hang around the renewable-energy business for long, you'll hear a lot of tall tales. You'll hear about someone who's invented a process to convert coal into vegetable oil in his garage and someone else who has a duck in his basement that paddles a wheel, blows up a balloon, turns a turbine and creates enough electricity to power his doghouse.
Hang around long enough and you'll even hear that in another 10 or 20 years hydrogen-powered cars or fusion energy will be a commercial reality. If I had a dime for every time I've heard one of those stories, I could buy my own space shuttle. No wonder cynics often say that viable fusion energy or hydrogen-powered cars are "20 years away and always will be."
But what if this time is different? What if a laser-powered fusion energy power plant that would have all the reliability of coal, without the carbon dioxide, all the cleanliness of wind and solar, without having to worry about the sun not shining or the wind not blowing, and all the scale of nuclear, without all the waste, was indeed just 10 years away or less? That would be a holy cow game-changer. Are we there?
That is the tantalizing question I was left with after visiting the recently completed National Ignition Facility, or N.I.F., at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 50 miles east of San Francisco. The government-funded N.I.F. consists of 192 giant lasers — which can deliver 50 times more energy than any previous fusion laser system. They're all housed in a 10-story building the size of three football fields — the rather dull cover to a vast internal steel forest of laser beams that must be what the engine room of Star Trek's U.S.S. Enterprise space ship looked like.
I began my tour there with the N.I.F. director, Edward Moses. He was holding up a tiny gold can the size of a Tylenol tablet, and inside it was plastic pellet, the size of a single peppercorn, that would be filled with frozen hydrogen.
The way the N.I.F. works is that all 192 lasers pour their energy into a target chamber, which looks like a giant, spherical, steel bathysphere that you would normally use for deep-sea exploration. At the center of this target chamber is that gold can with its frozen hydrogen pellet. Once one of those pellets is heated and compressed by the lasers, it reaches temperatures over 800 million degrees Fahrenheit, "far greater than exists at the center of our sun," said Moses.
More importantly, each crushed pellet gives off a burst of energy that can then be harnessed to heat up liquid salt and produce massive amounts of steam to drive a turbine and create electricity for your home — just like coal does today. Only this energy would be carbon-free, globally available, safe and secure and could be integrated seamlessly into America's current electric grid.
Last Monday at 3 a.m., for the first time, all 192 lasers were fired at high energy precisely at once — no small feat — at the target chamber's empty core. That was a major step toward "ignition" — turning that hydrogen pellet into a miniature sun on earth. The next step — which the N.I.F. expects to achieve some time in the next two to three years — is to prove that it can, under lab conditions, repeatedly fire its 192 lasers at multiple hydrogen pellets and produce more energy from the pellets than the laser energy that is injected. That's called "energy gain."
"That," explained Moses, "is what Einstein meant when he declared that E=mc². By using lasers, we can unleash tremendous amounts of energy from tiny amounts of mass."
Once the lab proves that it can get energy gain from this laser-driven process, the next step (if it can secure government and private funding) would be to set up a pilot fusion energy power plant that would prove that any local power utility could have its own miniature sun — on a commercial basis. A pilot would cost about $10 billion — the same as a new nuclear power plant.
I don't know if they can pull this off; some scientists are skeptical. Laboratory-scale nuclear fusion and energy gain is really hard. But here's what I do know: President Obama's stimulus package has given a terrific boost to renewable energy. It will pay lasting benefits. And we need to keep working on all forms of solar, geothermal and wind power. They work. And the more they get deployed, the more their costs will go down.
But, in addition, we need to make a few big bets on potential game-changers. I am talking about systems that could give us abundant, clean, reliable electrons and drive massive innovation in big lasers, materials science, nuclear physics and chemistry that would benefit, energize and renew many U.S. industries.
At the pace we're going with the technologies we have, without some game-changers, climate change is going to have its way with us. Yes, we'll still need coal for some time. But let's make sure that we aren't just chasing the fantasy that we can "clean up" coal, when our real future depends on birthing new technologies that can replace it.
Published: March 15, 2009
SAN FRANCISCO: If you hang around the renewable-energy business for long, you'll hear a lot of tall tales. You'll hear about someone who's invented a process to convert coal into vegetable oil in his garage and someone else who has a duck in his basement that paddles a wheel, blows up a balloon, turns a turbine and creates enough electricity to power his doghouse.
Hang around long enough and you'll even hear that in another 10 or 20 years hydrogen-powered cars or fusion energy will be a commercial reality. If I had a dime for every time I've heard one of those stories, I could buy my own space shuttle. No wonder cynics often say that viable fusion energy or hydrogen-powered cars are "20 years away and always will be."
But what if this time is different? What if a laser-powered fusion energy power plant that would have all the reliability of coal, without the carbon dioxide, all the cleanliness of wind and solar, without having to worry about the sun not shining or the wind not blowing, and all the scale of nuclear, without all the waste, was indeed just 10 years away or less? That would be a holy cow game-changer. Are we there?
That is the tantalizing question I was left with after visiting the recently completed National Ignition Facility, or N.I.F., at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 50 miles east of San Francisco. The government-funded N.I.F. consists of 192 giant lasers — which can deliver 50 times more energy than any previous fusion laser system. They're all housed in a 10-story building the size of three football fields — the rather dull cover to a vast internal steel forest of laser beams that must be what the engine room of Star Trek's U.S.S. Enterprise space ship looked like.
I began my tour there with the N.I.F. director, Edward Moses. He was holding up a tiny gold can the size of a Tylenol tablet, and inside it was plastic pellet, the size of a single peppercorn, that would be filled with frozen hydrogen.
The way the N.I.F. works is that all 192 lasers pour their energy into a target chamber, which looks like a giant, spherical, steel bathysphere that you would normally use for deep-sea exploration. At the center of this target chamber is that gold can with its frozen hydrogen pellet. Once one of those pellets is heated and compressed by the lasers, it reaches temperatures over 800 million degrees Fahrenheit, "far greater than exists at the center of our sun," said Moses.
More importantly, each crushed pellet gives off a burst of energy that can then be harnessed to heat up liquid salt and produce massive amounts of steam to drive a turbine and create electricity for your home — just like coal does today. Only this energy would be carbon-free, globally available, safe and secure and could be integrated seamlessly into America's current electric grid.
Last Monday at 3 a.m., for the first time, all 192 lasers were fired at high energy precisely at once — no small feat — at the target chamber's empty core. That was a major step toward "ignition" — turning that hydrogen pellet into a miniature sun on earth. The next step — which the N.I.F. expects to achieve some time in the next two to three years — is to prove that it can, under lab conditions, repeatedly fire its 192 lasers at multiple hydrogen pellets and produce more energy from the pellets than the laser energy that is injected. That's called "energy gain."
"That," explained Moses, "is what Einstein meant when he declared that E=mc². By using lasers, we can unleash tremendous amounts of energy from tiny amounts of mass."
Once the lab proves that it can get energy gain from this laser-driven process, the next step (if it can secure government and private funding) would be to set up a pilot fusion energy power plant that would prove that any local power utility could have its own miniature sun — on a commercial basis. A pilot would cost about $10 billion — the same as a new nuclear power plant.
I don't know if they can pull this off; some scientists are skeptical. Laboratory-scale nuclear fusion and energy gain is really hard. But here's what I do know: President Obama's stimulus package has given a terrific boost to renewable energy. It will pay lasting benefits. And we need to keep working on all forms of solar, geothermal and wind power. They work. And the more they get deployed, the more their costs will go down.
But, in addition, we need to make a few big bets on potential game-changers. I am talking about systems that could give us abundant, clean, reliable electrons and drive massive innovation in big lasers, materials science, nuclear physics and chemistry that would benefit, energize and renew many U.S. industries.
At the pace we're going with the technologies we have, without some game-changers, climate change is going to have its way with us. Yes, we'll still need coal for some time. But let's make sure that we aren't just chasing the fantasy that we can "clean up" coal, when our real future depends on birthing new technologies that can replace it.
Credentials that make money-men happy
By Sarah Murray
Published: March 16 2009 02:00
When talking about resource efficiency, SustainAbility, the think-tank and consultancy, cites some compelling company statistics: between 2005 and 2008, Wal-Mart cut its fuel consumption by 25 per cent - and the US retailer reckons an initial 15 per cent improvement in fuel efficiency generated savings of more than $40m a year.
Between 2002 and 2005, a programme to cut power wastage and use more renewable energy saved Pfizer, the pharmaceuticals company, $30m a year.
These are the kinds of figures that make finance directors happy. With recession putting pressure on balance sheets, resource efficiency - something that in recent years has been trumpeted by many companies as evidence of their green credentials - is starting to look even more appealing as part of cost-cutting measures.
"When you're focusing on every penny, you can't afford to let any opportunity to cut costs or improve efficiency go by," says Gwen Ruta, director of corporate partnerships at the US-based Environmental Defense Fund.
For many companies, energy use tops the agenda, often delivering the biggest bang for your buck when it comes to resource efficiency.
Cisco Systems, for example, has developed a system it calls EnergyWise, which helps clients monitor the power used by all their Cisco-connected devices, assess aggregated consumption and create policies to maximise power efficiency.
Cisco says the system could, for example, help the average bank branch cut its energy bills by more than €28,000 a year by powering down equipment when not in use.
However, climate change has put the spotlight on power consumption, plenty of potential exists in other areas to conserve natural resources while also saving money.
Water is one of them. Dow Chemical has identified water saving potential in everything from steam leak elimination to reuse of high-quality effluent streams and alternative cooling techniques. Using seawater cooling for its largest manufacturing site in Freeport, Texas, has helped the company avoid more than $35m in capital spending.
"Most of our capital projects involve assets that are expected to run for the next 20-30 years," says Neil Hawkins, head of sustainability at Dow Chemical.
"We work to incorporate conservation design principles, recycle-reuse thinking and by-product synergies into the plants we build up front. Innovative design can help us reduce both capital outlays and long-term operational costs."
Coca-Cola is also focusing on water, aiming to improve efficiency by 20 per cent by 2012, compared with 2004. While the company's water use is expected to increase, it says the target would eliminate about 50bn litres of that increase in 2012 and avoid $150m in water acquisition, treatment and discharge costs between 2008 and 2011.
Resource efficiency programmes, however, can be difficult to implement. The first challenge is identifying measures that will make the most impact. This means careful auditing of what resources are being used and seeking areas to target for reductions.
Another difficulty is a human one. "The single-most barrier is poor leadership," says Sophia Tickell, director of research, communications and advocacy at SustainAbility.
"Most companies underestimate the power that a clear strategy can play in incentivising enterprise-wide reductions in natural resource use - especially if used in performance management."
Where companies have highly-decentralised structures, enterprise-wide strategies on resource efficiency can be tough to implement. "We often see examples where a capital investment in one department would be paid back through savings in a different department," says Ms Ruta. "This can be very tricky for a company to negotiate."
Another difficulty is applying environmental programmes in the operations of supply chain partners. In 2007, about 79 per cent of Coca-Cola's unit cases were produced and distributed by bottling partners in which it had no ownership interest or had a non-controlling equity interest.
"This means that we do not dictate global sustainability goals," says Lisa Manley, director of environmental communications at the company.
"Instead we work to align our global system around integrated strategies with hard, real performance targets. This takes time and a good bit of internal diplomacy."
It also means clearly making the business case for resource efficiency and communicating that message throughout the enterprise.
Mr Hawkins at Dow Chemical argues that it is crucial for companies to acknowledge the impact of environmental programmes on the bottom line, rather than treating them as add-ons. "They must deliver real, tangible value," he says. "Business value is business value - in good times or bad."
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: March 16 2009 02:00
When talking about resource efficiency, SustainAbility, the think-tank and consultancy, cites some compelling company statistics: between 2005 and 2008, Wal-Mart cut its fuel consumption by 25 per cent - and the US retailer reckons an initial 15 per cent improvement in fuel efficiency generated savings of more than $40m a year.
Between 2002 and 2005, a programme to cut power wastage and use more renewable energy saved Pfizer, the pharmaceuticals company, $30m a year.
These are the kinds of figures that make finance directors happy. With recession putting pressure on balance sheets, resource efficiency - something that in recent years has been trumpeted by many companies as evidence of their green credentials - is starting to look even more appealing as part of cost-cutting measures.
"When you're focusing on every penny, you can't afford to let any opportunity to cut costs or improve efficiency go by," says Gwen Ruta, director of corporate partnerships at the US-based Environmental Defense Fund.
For many companies, energy use tops the agenda, often delivering the biggest bang for your buck when it comes to resource efficiency.
Cisco Systems, for example, has developed a system it calls EnergyWise, which helps clients monitor the power used by all their Cisco-connected devices, assess aggregated consumption and create policies to maximise power efficiency.
Cisco says the system could, for example, help the average bank branch cut its energy bills by more than €28,000 a year by powering down equipment when not in use.
However, climate change has put the spotlight on power consumption, plenty of potential exists in other areas to conserve natural resources while also saving money.
Water is one of them. Dow Chemical has identified water saving potential in everything from steam leak elimination to reuse of high-quality effluent streams and alternative cooling techniques. Using seawater cooling for its largest manufacturing site in Freeport, Texas, has helped the company avoid more than $35m in capital spending.
"Most of our capital projects involve assets that are expected to run for the next 20-30 years," says Neil Hawkins, head of sustainability at Dow Chemical.
"We work to incorporate conservation design principles, recycle-reuse thinking and by-product synergies into the plants we build up front. Innovative design can help us reduce both capital outlays and long-term operational costs."
Coca-Cola is also focusing on water, aiming to improve efficiency by 20 per cent by 2012, compared with 2004. While the company's water use is expected to increase, it says the target would eliminate about 50bn litres of that increase in 2012 and avoid $150m in water acquisition, treatment and discharge costs between 2008 and 2011.
Resource efficiency programmes, however, can be difficult to implement. The first challenge is identifying measures that will make the most impact. This means careful auditing of what resources are being used and seeking areas to target for reductions.
Another difficulty is a human one. "The single-most barrier is poor leadership," says Sophia Tickell, director of research, communications and advocacy at SustainAbility.
"Most companies underestimate the power that a clear strategy can play in incentivising enterprise-wide reductions in natural resource use - especially if used in performance management."
Where companies have highly-decentralised structures, enterprise-wide strategies on resource efficiency can be tough to implement. "We often see examples where a capital investment in one department would be paid back through savings in a different department," says Ms Ruta. "This can be very tricky for a company to negotiate."
Another difficulty is applying environmental programmes in the operations of supply chain partners. In 2007, about 79 per cent of Coca-Cola's unit cases were produced and distributed by bottling partners in which it had no ownership interest or had a non-controlling equity interest.
"This means that we do not dictate global sustainability goals," says Lisa Manley, director of environmental communications at the company.
"Instead we work to align our global system around integrated strategies with hard, real performance targets. This takes time and a good bit of internal diplomacy."
It also means clearly making the business case for resource efficiency and communicating that message throughout the enterprise.
Mr Hawkins at Dow Chemical argues that it is crucial for companies to acknowledge the impact of environmental programmes on the bottom line, rather than treating them as add-ons. "They must deliver real, tangible value," he says. "Business value is business value - in good times or bad."
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Obama says no quick end to ethanol dispute
By Alan Beattie in Washington
Published: March 15 2009 02:37
Barack Obama on Saturday said there would be no quick resolution to a dispute with Brazil over restricting ethanol imports to the US, following his first meeting with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
The Brazilian president, in his first visit to Washington since Mr Obama took office, said it was wrong for the US continued to levy import tariffs on Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, which is more environmentally friendly than the maize ethanol produced in the US.
“I also can’t understand [why] while the world is concerned with climate change and with carbon emissions … clean fuel also gets tariffs,” Mr da Silva said.
The issue has become a bone of contention between the two countries, with Brazil threatening litigation at the World Trade Organisation over the US’s 54 cent per gallon import tariff.
Brazil has also used the issue to counter US demands for it to cut to zero its own tariffs on so-called “environmental goods” such as renewable energy technology, accusing Washington of hypocrisy.
Mr Obama paid tribute to Brazil’s leadership in biofuel production and said that his administration would continue to work with Brazil on the issue. But he added: “It’s not going to change overnight.”
Mr Obama also played down the chances of a swift resolution to the beleaguered so-called “Doha round” of trade talks, which has stalled on disputes over agricultural tariffs and subsidies and industrial goods protection.
“It may be difficult for us to finalize a whole host of trade deals in the midst of an economic crisis like this one, although we have committed to sitting down with our Brazilian counterparts to find ways that we can start closing the gap on the Doha Round and other potential trade agreements,” Mr Obama said.
“I’m optimistic that we’ll be able to make progress,” he said. “It may not happen immediately.”
Brazil’s highly competitive farmers have pushed for a rapid conclusion to the round and for cuts in US farm subsidies and European farm tariffs to expand their export markets. But resistance from the US and reluctance from developing countries such as India to cut protection for farmers has led to repeated breakdowns in negotiations.
Mr da Silva agreed on Saturday that the economic crisis made it harder to reach a deal in Doha.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: March 15 2009 02:37
Barack Obama on Saturday said there would be no quick resolution to a dispute with Brazil over restricting ethanol imports to the US, following his first meeting with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
The Brazilian president, in his first visit to Washington since Mr Obama took office, said it was wrong for the US continued to levy import tariffs on Brazilian sugarcane ethanol, which is more environmentally friendly than the maize ethanol produced in the US.
“I also can’t understand [why] while the world is concerned with climate change and with carbon emissions … clean fuel also gets tariffs,” Mr da Silva said.
The issue has become a bone of contention between the two countries, with Brazil threatening litigation at the World Trade Organisation over the US’s 54 cent per gallon import tariff.
Brazil has also used the issue to counter US demands for it to cut to zero its own tariffs on so-called “environmental goods” such as renewable energy technology, accusing Washington of hypocrisy.
Mr Obama paid tribute to Brazil’s leadership in biofuel production and said that his administration would continue to work with Brazil on the issue. But he added: “It’s not going to change overnight.”
Mr Obama also played down the chances of a swift resolution to the beleaguered so-called “Doha round” of trade talks, which has stalled on disputes over agricultural tariffs and subsidies and industrial goods protection.
“It may be difficult for us to finalize a whole host of trade deals in the midst of an economic crisis like this one, although we have committed to sitting down with our Brazilian counterparts to find ways that we can start closing the gap on the Doha Round and other potential trade agreements,” Mr Obama said.
“I’m optimistic that we’ll be able to make progress,” he said. “It may not happen immediately.”
Brazil’s highly competitive farmers have pushed for a rapid conclusion to the round and for cuts in US farm subsidies and European farm tariffs to expand their export markets. But resistance from the US and reluctance from developing countries such as India to cut protection for farmers has led to repeated breakdowns in negotiations.
Mr da Silva agreed on Saturday that the economic crisis made it harder to reach a deal in Doha.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Everyone Hates Ethanol
These days, it's routine for businesses to fail, get rescued by the government, and then continue to fail. But ethanol, which survives only because of its iron lung of subsidies and mandates, is a special case. Naturally, the industry is demanding even more government life support.
Corn ethanol producers -- led by Wesley Clark, the retired general turned chairman of a new biofuels lobbying outfit called Growth Energy -- want the Obama Administration to make their guaranteed market even larger. Recall that the 2007 energy bill requires refiners to mix 36 billion gallons into the gasoline supply by 2022. The quotas, which ratchet up each year, are arbitrary, but evidently no one in Congress wondered what might happen if the economy didn't cooperate.
Now the recession is hammering demand for gas. The Energy Information Administration notes that U.S. consumption fell nearly 7% in 2008 and expects another 2.2% drop this year. That comes as great news for President Obama, who is achieving his carbon-reduction goals even without a new carbon tax, but the irony is that the ethanol industry is part of the wider collateral damage.
Americans are unlikely to use enough gas next year to absorb the 13 billion gallons of ethanol that Congress mandated, because current regulations limit the ethanol content in each gallon of gas at 10%. The industry is asking that this cap be lifted to 15% or even 20%. That way, more ethanol can be mixed with less gas, and producers won't end up with a glut that the government does not require anyone to buy.
The ethanol boosters aren't troubled that only a fraction of the 240 million cars and trucks on the road today can run with ethanol blends higher than 10%. It can damage engines and corrode automotive pipes, as well as impair some safety features, especially in older vehicles. It can also overwhelm pollution control systems like catalytic converters. The malfunctions multiply in other products that use gas, such as boats, snowmobiles, lawnmowers, chainsaws, etc.
That possible policy train wreck is uniting almost every other Washington lobby -- and talk about strange bedfellows. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Motorcycle Industry Council and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, among others, are opposed, since raising the blend limit will ruin their products. The left-leaning American Lung Association and the Union of Concerned Scientists are opposed too, since it will increase auto emissions. The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club agree, on top of growing scientific evidence that corn ethanol provides little or no net reduction in CO2 over the gasoline it displaces.
The biggest losers in this scheme are U.S. oil refiners. Liability for any problems arising from ethanol blending rests with them, because Congress refused to grant legal immunity for selling a product that complies with the mandates that it ordered. The refiners are also set to pay stiff fines for not fulfilling Congress's mandates for second-generation cellulosic ethanol. But the cellulosic ethanol makers themselves already concede that they won't be able to churn out enough of the stuff -- 100 million gallons next year, 250 million gallons in 2011 -- to meet the targets that Congress wrote two years ago.
So successful but politically unpopular businesses will be punished for not buying a product that does not exist -- from companies that haven't yet found a way to succeed despite generous political and taxpayer advantages. The next step is to use cap and trade to make green alternatives look artificially good by comparison. Even then they'll probably still be bottomless money pits.
To recap: Congress and the ethanol lobby argue that if some outcome would be politically nice, it should be mandated (details to follow). Then a new round of market interventions is necessary to fix the economic harm resulting from the previous requirements, while creating more damage in the process. Ethanol is one of the most shameless energy rackets going, in a field with no shortage of competitors.
Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
Corn ethanol producers -- led by Wesley Clark, the retired general turned chairman of a new biofuels lobbying outfit called Growth Energy -- want the Obama Administration to make their guaranteed market even larger. Recall that the 2007 energy bill requires refiners to mix 36 billion gallons into the gasoline supply by 2022. The quotas, which ratchet up each year, are arbitrary, but evidently no one in Congress wondered what might happen if the economy didn't cooperate.
Now the recession is hammering demand for gas. The Energy Information Administration notes that U.S. consumption fell nearly 7% in 2008 and expects another 2.2% drop this year. That comes as great news for President Obama, who is achieving his carbon-reduction goals even without a new carbon tax, but the irony is that the ethanol industry is part of the wider collateral damage.
Americans are unlikely to use enough gas next year to absorb the 13 billion gallons of ethanol that Congress mandated, because current regulations limit the ethanol content in each gallon of gas at 10%. The industry is asking that this cap be lifted to 15% or even 20%. That way, more ethanol can be mixed with less gas, and producers won't end up with a glut that the government does not require anyone to buy.
The ethanol boosters aren't troubled that only a fraction of the 240 million cars and trucks on the road today can run with ethanol blends higher than 10%. It can damage engines and corrode automotive pipes, as well as impair some safety features, especially in older vehicles. It can also overwhelm pollution control systems like catalytic converters. The malfunctions multiply in other products that use gas, such as boats, snowmobiles, lawnmowers, chainsaws, etc.
That possible policy train wreck is uniting almost every other Washington lobby -- and talk about strange bedfellows. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Motorcycle Industry Council and the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute, among others, are opposed, since raising the blend limit will ruin their products. The left-leaning American Lung Association and the Union of Concerned Scientists are opposed too, since it will increase auto emissions. The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club agree, on top of growing scientific evidence that corn ethanol provides little or no net reduction in CO2 over the gasoline it displaces.
The biggest losers in this scheme are U.S. oil refiners. Liability for any problems arising from ethanol blending rests with them, because Congress refused to grant legal immunity for selling a product that complies with the mandates that it ordered. The refiners are also set to pay stiff fines for not fulfilling Congress's mandates for second-generation cellulosic ethanol. But the cellulosic ethanol makers themselves already concede that they won't be able to churn out enough of the stuff -- 100 million gallons next year, 250 million gallons in 2011 -- to meet the targets that Congress wrote two years ago.
So successful but politically unpopular businesses will be punished for not buying a product that does not exist -- from companies that haven't yet found a way to succeed despite generous political and taxpayer advantages. The next step is to use cap and trade to make green alternatives look artificially good by comparison. Even then they'll probably still be bottomless money pits.
To recap: Congress and the ethanol lobby argue that if some outcome would be politically nice, it should be mandated (details to follow). Then a new round of market interventions is necessary to fix the economic harm resulting from the previous requirements, while creating more damage in the process. Ethanol is one of the most shameless energy rackets going, in a field with no shortage of competitors.
Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
